I apologize in advance.

I just thought this might be an interesting read, if not, then at least insightful. If not, then I beg your pardon. Something I had said, not too long ago, was said to be "racist at worst". The funny thing to me is, I know the only reason that was said, was because of the race of the person, (yours truly, moi), who said it. Why do I feel this way? Because a couple of men in here openly agreed with me on the subject, however, their agreement was not called out as being racist. Anyway, it reminded me of some of the things mentioned in this article:

What Is Racism?
Thomas Jackson

There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never shrugged off. For example, when a white Georgetown Law School student reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as white students, it set off a booming, national controversy about "racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism.
Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is racism?

Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard-working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.

The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.

All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on white wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today's whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's whites must have oppressed them. If whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of white people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of white people.

The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-white failure is white racism, every time a non-white is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, white society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-whites is standing proof that white society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as whites, whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by white people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only white people can be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that all whites are racist and that only whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?

Although some blacks and liberal whites concede that non-whites can, perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-whites have been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of white oppression. What appears to be non-white racism is so understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would surely be called racism when done by whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.

Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost tedious to list them: When a white man kills a black man and uses the word "nigger" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random whites, the media are silent. College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks on whites.

At election time, if 60 percent of the white voters vote for a white candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black opponent, it is whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107 "historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically white colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of ... the same thing. To resist would be racist.

"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of white pride is a form of hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.

Blatant anti-white prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in favor of whites, would be attacked as despicable favoritism.

All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or association expressly for whites is by definition racist. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights" organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to be viciously racist.

At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have set up student unions for whites, analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently, when the white students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones that non-whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a white enclave but whose members simply happen all to be white is branded as racist.

(continued in my next post/reply due to the number of characters...)

 

Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality of American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn on a few people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-white group -- a company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood -- is thought to suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possible. Only when whites have been reduced to a minority has "diversity" been achieved.

Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-white. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all non-white. It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity." It is, of course, only white nations that are called upon to practice this kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.

What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor whites who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if they weren't citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs and schooling?

Would Mexico -- or any other non-white nation -- tolerate this kind of cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet white Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed to "celebrate" their own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist.

There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non-whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of "hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are "anti-white."

Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.

Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, white people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.

Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to love one's people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?

No, it is the white enterprise in the United States that is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in the history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow "hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.

What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do otherwise would be "racist."

What, then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history -- but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.

 

I'd say that this is well-covered up racist propaganda, if it was about sweden at least.
A few well made points, but it stilll boils down to protecting the white people that do have a lot of advantages in comparision to other groups.
And lots of it IS advantages, not rights..

These ones are hard to see through, well formulated and taps into that constant feeling of "if they can, why can't I".

Everyone can off course be racist. Otherwhise it'd be called whiteist. But-- however, i'd still dismiss this as the work of a rethorically gifted racist. Or rather, whiteist. ..

 

I kind of agree with scylla. It did make a few good points though.

I don't think you were being racist, the way I was brought up was that racist meant that you hated another race. It perhaps has a broader meaning than that but yeah, you clearly don't hate Africans/African-Americans, you simply stated that you didn't like the thought of someone voting for someone simply based on their skin colour, gender etc... rather than their actual policies. Which in my book, is not racist.

I think being white you just have to accept the double standard that exists - the black power/white power thing. It is a bit absurd that one group is praised and the other is frowned upon.

I think sometimes the media can make up hate crimes, any time someone harms/kills someone of another race it's seen as a hate crime when really, most of the time, they aren't killed/harmed for the colour of their skin. It's the same with black on white violence.

But yeah, don't apologise, you know you're not racist and your views aren't racist either. There's nothing wrong with you wanting people vote on policies rather than colour/gender.

 

Oh, I didn't mean that britty is racist. I meant that the guy writing it where. I think it is very important to discuss this sort of stuff as well as the blatantly obvious, because it is easy to get caught up in it if you don't keep your ears open.. It's easy to read this sort of stuff and think "yeah, he's right!" because he does point out things that most people think but don't say out loud.
You don't have to be racist to think that some points are true. The whole point with the document is still to get people more racist.. or maybe I'm overly suspicious.

 

Weak ass shit.

Affirmative action was not concieved to help Blacks..but to ANGER whites..look how well it works..

Affirmative action was expanded 5 years after later(in 1972) to include ALL RACES..that's something hillbilly racists ignore.

WW and Asians(even mexican illegals) benefit from AA more than Blacks...especially BM.

Many Whites act as if EVERYBODY caucasian got into college before AA(lol)..They ignore the lack of Blacks in colleges not to mention Black unemployment rates that triple whites..

One minute we're lazy...then we're taking away all their jobs the next.

One minute they claim white's can't get into college because of affrimative action..then they say "they are more Blacks in prison than college"

WHICH ONE IS IT????

Just goes to show how racism(and white privalege) BLINDS so many.

They aren't enuff Blacks in America to stop White folks from doing a damn thing.

Whatever we have in this Country we EARNED and paid for dearly..more than any other group..NOBODY GAVE US ANYTHING...BUT TROUBLE.

As for the White Power/Black power bullshit.

Black power never LYNCHED anybody..It's just a way to offset the CONSTANT attack on our image.

If we don't boost our own self-esteem..who the fuck will??..Certainly not whites.

Blacks never made whites coons..jiggaboos..porch-monkeys..niggers..gollywogs..pickanninies..bucks or mammies .

The thought of Blacks reclaiming our image seems to bother certain "people", such as the fool that wrote that article and his/her insecure ilk.

Fuck em' all..they can suck maggots in hell.

If they have a problem with me holding my head up high then they better brace themselves...because they ain't seen shit yet.

 

This guy needs a walk down Memory Lane

^^I cosign most of this.

It's ridiculous to me to read how some whites say they can't get into schools like Howard (schools that were originally formed b/c blacks weren't admitted into traditionally white universities) or how quickly they are to say things like "If it weren't for affirmative action, I'd have that job..." when AA seeks to reverse the discrimination that has been around and is STILL around (just because a company doesn't duly say it won't hire minorities or women doesn't mean it will).

12% of the population isn't responsible for 40 of the crime. 12% of the population isn't stopping a group that comprises of at least 50% of the nation's total population from getting into good colleges.

Not that either one is right (b/c real racism is an atrocity, no matter who has engaged in it), but for every act of blacks acting on racial sentiments against whites, I'm sure there has been a lynching of a black person.

 

Yea, I can't say I agree with everything that he said. However, I do think that racism does have double standards. That if you're white and you don't kiss someone's ass, who happens to be another race, that automatically makes you racist when you could very well just be someone who doesn't bow down to others or kiss anyone's ass, and someone who says what's on your mind, no matter what the case is. But I don't believe this is true vice versa. It's funny to me, someone assuming I'm racist because of the race I am. To me, that's the apple calling the pear a fruit. You're right, Black power never LYNCHED anybody, and guess what? NEITHER HAVE I! But because I'm white, if I don't get along with a black person, or stick up for myself to a black person, and if I don't kiss someone's ass who's another race, then I'm racist?! WTF is that? Am I supposed to let someone talk down to me and belittle me, disrespect me, and give me attitude, because of something that I didn't have a gotdamn thing to do with, because it's something that other people with the same skin color as me did/has done? THIS WHITE GIRL never made "coons", "jiggaboos", "porchmonkeys", "niggers", "gollywogs", "pickannines", "bucks" or "mammies" EITHER. Yet, as soon as I disagree with a black person, it's racist of me, because I'm white? To me, that makes the black person accusing me of being racist or of saying something racist NO BETTER and NO DIFFERENT, than the white racists they claim to hate so much, who's "race" has done so much bad to their race and their ancestors. It's a vicious cycle, I guess. Cycles never end. So, I feel, as long as anyone of both races are participating in this cycle, "you're" just as responsible for keeping racism alive and ever active. Which, to me, would give that person, no right whatsof**kingever to bitch and moan about racism and it's presence and affects and act all victimized and "woe is me".
In reference to what someone else said, you're the only person on this earth who can boost your own self-esteem anyway. That's true for every single living being on this planet. Common sense. No offense. And it really wouldn't bother me none to think of blacks reclaiming their image. I truly hope every person on this globe will strive to do that and live their life to the fullest and aspire to be everything they could ever possibly be. And don't let anyone ever get in your way, no matter what. Hold your heads up high!! And in reference to what someone else responded with, I agree, racism is an atrocity, no matter who has engaged in it. But it's never going away or going to die down, so long as people don't take responsibility for it and stay in denial over their taking part in it. Two wrongs don't make a right. You can't change something if you won't believe it's presence is there in your own damn self as well. Stop dwelling on what's past and focus on making yourself a better, happier, healthier, more fulfilling future. If it's something you really want to do, not a damn thing can stop you. You can't move forward if you're brooding over things that happened to your ancestors, or over shit that happened even yesterday, or 60 seconds ago. It's over, move on. Doing anything else is wasting your time. No one should want to afford that. Am I right?

 

Somebody's post must have really irked you.

 

I prefer the term "muse"

 

I co-sign to some extent. Still, it would be hypocritical of me not to say that we still have to take responsibility for our past actions as well. Black, white, purple, pink whatever, crimes commited in past that still affects us today must be remembered for what they were, crimes against humanity.
White people have had the upper hand, and we need to be aware and work against prejudice. BUT that doesnt mean that we should be called racist everyother second, just because we are white, thats racism too.

It's rather hard, this subject. And I am god help me doing paralells to feminism. Because this could equally be about men and women, more or less. That we shouldn't complain, because now we can vote and own houses.

I think the core is not to make yourself a victim and go blaming the other part constantly. Both sides are equally responsible of upholding stereotypes (men, women, black, white.)..

so lets hold hands and sing kumbaya. j/k

 

LoL, yes, very good. What are the words to kumbaya? :smt017

 

No one is responsible for the actions that others committed in the past. All of us as individuals must focus on the here and now and leave the past where it is at. That is the only way we can move forward

 

:smt080:smt023:smt038:smt045

 

it's Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya my lord mumble mumble mumble kumbaya
i think..

 

Yea, that's all I know.

 

Glad to see you're happy.
Now you can stop bitching about affirmative action and reverse racism.

 

I was sharing my feelings and opinions, not something like bitching. It's not that deep or relevant to me

 

Don't mind him. He's like Joe McCarthy. He thinks there are racists under every bed:roll:.

 

Oooh, one of those. Okay, got it. :smt120